This bug was initially created as a copy of Bug #2129432 I am copying this bug because: The update is to be evaluated for doc impact. Description of problem: - The output of the hammer for recurring-logic list is shows ID and cron line, but not the 'Action', 'Last Occurrence' and 'Next Occurrence' columns displayed. ~~~~~ # hammer recurring-logic list ---|-----------|-----------|----------|------- ID | CRON LINE | ITERATION | END TIME | STATE ---|-----------|-----------|----------|------- 5 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active 6 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active 1 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active 4 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active ---|-----------|-----------|----------|------- # hammer recurring-logic list --fields ALL ---|-----------|-----------|----------|------- ID | CRON LINE | ITERATION | END TIME | STATE ---|-----------|-----------|----------|------- 5 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active 6 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active 1 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active 4 | 0 0 * * * | 51 | | active ---|-----------|-----------|----------|------- ~~~~~ - However, the info 'Action', 'Last Occurrence' and 'Next Occurrence' available when we go on Satellite web UI -> Monitor -> Recurring logics. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Red Hat Satellite How reproducible: Yes. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Check the output of hammer recurring-logic list from Satellite CLI. 2. Compare the output with the info available on Satellite web UI -> Monitor -> Recurring logics. Actual results: -The command hammer recurring-logic list shows only ID and cron line which is not useful to get an overview/summary to provide as info. Expected results: -The output of hammer recurring-logic list should display more info with additional columns like 'Action', 'Last Occurrence' and 'Next Occurrence'. Additional info:
I didn't find any instances of "hammer recurring-logic" in the docs set.
Does that mean we can just close this or that it should be documented from the ground up?
(In reply to Adam Ruzicka from comment #3) > Does that mean we can just close this or that it should be documented from > the ground up? I'd prefer not to add any new docs to the product *guides*. If this really is just about a change in behavior of a command (hammer recurring-logic) that was not documented before, I don't see a reason to document it now. Another option would be to publish a *release note*. But in my opinion, the change in behavior is too small even for that. What do you think? Would you be ok with not documenting this at all?
Sure, fine by me
Nothing to document here.